Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 08-22-2008, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Well, that is what the OP is about. Mark's purpose with the story is not to tell the story of this wonderful Messiah named Jesus. Rather it is to show that the idea of a Messiah just doesn't work and hence that believing in it is at least silly and possibly dangerous.

Gerard Stafleu

Thanks. Do you mean the Messiah idea generally, or the Christian version of it preached by the apostles?

Mark was, I think, addressing either the Messiah idea held among the gentile Christians, and/or was addressing the Messiah idea of the Jewish Christians. The latter was much more dangerous, as it could lead to (another) revolt against the Romans, with foreseeable disastrous results. The former version was mostly silly, and perhaps to some extent dangerous as it might be at odds with Roman civic religion. Hence his story revolves around showing how such a Messiah simply doesn't work, an extended version of the prophet-in-his-own-country idea.

Gerard Stafleu

bacht · 08-22-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Mark was, I think, addressing either the Messiah idea held among the gentile Christians, and/or was addressing the Messiah idea of the Jewish Christians. The latter was much more dangerous, as it could lead to (another) revolt against the Romans, with foreseeable disastrous results. The former version was mostly silly, and perhaps to some extent dangerous as it might be at odds with Roman civic religion. Hence his story revolves around showing how such a Messiah simply doesn't work, an extended version of the prophet-in-his-own-country idea.

Gerard Stafleu

Very interesting. This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for, a plausible alternative to the standard apologist explanation.

So Mark is offering a critique and a warning, if I may paraphrase: "You foolish messianists, don't make the same mistake again" - sounds similar to the Rabbinic attitudes that developed in the Talmuds

ChuckE99 · 08-22-2008, 12:17 PM

I like this as an idea (though I'm not sure it's much more than another way of looking at the story). But that suggests that GMark is a very sophisticated story written in ancient times, since clearly the text never comes out and says, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!" That's a pretty big nuance to gleen from the story. (And, it hasn't been gleened for 2,000 years, so it is a very subtle nuance.)

Still, it's an idea that gives structure to what I see as the underlying Miracle Worker/Messiah story of GMark and points to what may have been a form of proto-Mark before the addition of some select sayings. For example, 4:1 through 4:32, which are some of the only sayings in GMark rated as probably authentic by the Jesus Seminar. I would suggest that they are authentic to some first-century prophet, but that they were dropped into the story of the Messiah to give it more heft.

You can then see how the authors of Matthew and Luke, who each had a copy of "Q", picked up on the similarities of the sayings and decided to put even more of them into the story, along with birth narratives and extended passion details.

So, the evolution of the Jesus Christ myth goes:

1. Cautionary Tale + Proto-sayings (what Crossan labels the "triple tradition" of sayings) = GMark
2. GMark + more sayings + birth legends + resurrection legends = GMatthew and GLuke

bacht · 08-22-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

I like this as an idea (though I'm not sure it's much more than another way of looking at the story). But that suggests that GMark is a very sophisticated story written in ancient times, since clearly the text never comes out and says, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!" That's a pretty big nuance to glean from the story. (And, it hasn't been gleaned for 2,000 years, so it is a very subtle nuance.)

Still, it's an idea that gives structure to what I see as the underlying Miracle Worker/Messiah story of GMark and points to what may have been a form of proto-Mark before the addition of some select sayings. For example, 4:1 through 4:32, which are some of the only sayings in GMark rated as probably authentic by the Jesus Seminar. I would suggest that they are authentic to some first-century prophet, but that they were dropped into the story of the Messiah to give it more heft.

You can then see how the authors of Matthew and Luke, who each had a copy of "Q", picked up on the similarities of the sayings and decided to put even more of them into the story, along with birth narratives and extended passion details.

So, the evolution of the Jesus Christ myth goes:

1. Cautionary Tale + Proto-sayings (what Crossan labels the "triple tradition" of sayings) = GMark
2. GMark + more sayings + birth legends + resurrection legends = GMatthew and GLuke

Seems like a reasonable reconstruction

My understanding is that gMark kind of disappeared in the 2nd C. Once the other writers started building on it poor old Mark seems to have been discarded. Maybe it was seen as too narrow or pessimistic in its message?

Ben C Smith · 08-23-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

So, never mind "genre," that seems much too laden a term. Let us focus on authorial purpose here.

Well, of course I referred to genre (A) because my original question to you, the one that apparently sparked this thread, had to do with genre and (B) because you referred to genre.

I am not sure it is possible or profitable to discuss authorial purpose without at least including the genre. After all, a lot of what we discern in authorial purpose has to do with our perceptions of the genre.

It is possible for a novelist, for example, to write the exact words an historian might use about a set of events, but the purpose of the former might be pure entertainment while the purpose of the latter might be to inform readers about that set of events. There might also be overlaps in purpose, of course; some historians also aim to entertain, and some novelists also aim to inform. But the point is that knowing the genre goes a long way toward letting us decipher the authorial purpose.

For example, on this very thread spamandham wrote:

In both cases, an author starts with a story he has heard before, and adds whatever he sees fit to it to harmonize parts of it that are odd, to insert his own agenda with little constraint, or to puff up the hero that much more.

He is here using the genre to make determinations about the work in question. He infers several things (that the author has heard the story before, that he is free to insert his own agenda and to harmonize, that he seeks to magnify the hero or, one might say from what Andrew Criddle wrote, to magnify the set of events) from the fact that a text is either a heroic biography or a legendary tale.

I think that authorial purpose is one of the things that can be partially (probably never fully) inferred from knowing the genre.

Ben.

aa5874 · 08-23-2008, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Okay, I accept the point that Paul's use of the word is different than Mark's, but I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about Mark's authorial purpose, can you elaborate?

Well, that is what the OP is about. Mark's purpose with the story is not to tell the story of this wonderful Messiah named Jesus. Rather it is to show that the idea of a Messiah just doesn't work and hence that believing in it is at least silly and possibly dangerous.

Gerard Stafleu

But where in gMark does the author develop the idea that the Messiah does not work, and that believing in the Messiah is at least silly and possibly dangerous?

Are you refereing to a spiritual Messiah or the physical Messiah?

gurugeorge · 08-23-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

In another thread Ben asked me what I think the Genre of Mark is. This is always a risky question, as it begs circular answers like "The genre of a gospel is gospel." While I think that Matthew, Luke, John and others may indeed be of a genre "gospel," I don't think this is the case with Mark.

Thanks for starting this thread, Gerard. Let me at this point simply point out a minor issue or two; I will hopefully be able to address the more major points later on.

First, I do not personally think that there is a separate genre of gospel. I might prefer to call it a subgenre. You appear to agree with me that the genre is actually βιος, more specifically the kind of βιος that describes a divine hero of some kind (like Augustus, Romulus, Empedocles, or Alexander). Within this basic genre (βιος) or, if you will, this basic genre with a particular focus (heroic βιος), the gospels fit nicely as a subgenre; they can be shown, I think, to be more closely related as a group to other (heroic) βιοι than to works from other genres (such as histories, novels, or epics), but they can also be shown, I think, to be more closely related individually to each other than to other heroic βιοι. This is practically the definition of a subgenre, provided the differences and similarities are sharp enough to make such a subdivision practical.

Quote:

Rather, I think Mark is a "Cautionary Tale," or possibly "Satire," see below--I'll describe the "Cautionary Tale" version first, although it does not essentialy differ from the "Satire" version. Now if you don't think that "cautionary tale" is an officially recognized genre, you can call it something like a cautionary tale in the form of a heroic biography. But "cautionary tale" is the meat of the matter.

Second, I object strongly to calling cautionary tale a genre; it is an authorial purpose. As a genre, cautionary tale is not even fit enough to distinguish between fiction and nonfiction. Fables can be (principally fictional) cautionary tales, and stories from my own youth that I tell my children in hopes that they avoid the mistakes I made can be (principally nonfictional) cautionary tales.

So I am glad you stuck that bit in there about the form of a heroic biography. That genre, I think, we can work with.

The rest I will have to save for later.

Hey Ben - what about the category of Stoic "exemplary biography"? I read somewhere about Stoicism having developed as a teaching tool the use of biography with characters showing their philosophical/moral principles in action.

Could the gospels be imitating Stoic use of exemplary biography in this way? (Obviously this question is HJ/MJ neutral, and kind of interesting in itself.)

Roland · 08-23-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

I like this as an idea (though I'm not sure it's much more than another way of looking at the story). But that suggests that GMark is a very sophisticated story written in ancient times, since clearly the text never comes out and says, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!" That's a pretty big nuance to glean from the story. (And, it hasn't been gleaned for 2,000 years, so it is a very subtle nuance.)

Still, it's an idea that gives structure to what I see as the underlying Miracle Worker/Messiah story of GMark and points to what may have been a form of proto-Mark before the addition of some select sayings. For example, 4:1 through 4:32, which are some of the only sayings in GMark rated as probably authentic by the Jesus Seminar. I would suggest that they are authentic to some first-century prophet, but that they were dropped into the story of the Messiah to give it more heft.

You can then see how the authors of Matthew and Luke, who each had a copy of "Q", picked up on the similarities of the sayings and decided to put even more of them into the story, along with birth narratives and extended passion details.

So, the evolution of the Jesus Christ myth goes:

1. Cautionary Tale + Proto-sayings (what Crossan labels the "triple tradition" of sayings) = GMark
2. GMark + more sayings + birth legends + resurrection legends = GMatthew and GLuke

Seems like a reasonable reconstruction

My understanding is that gMark kind of disappeared in the 2nd C. Once the other writers started building on it poor old Mark seems to have been discarded. Maybe it was seen as too narrow or pessimistic in its message?

Perhaps, or perhaps it's more like the Charlton Heston version of "Ben-Hur" replacing the silent movie version. Why go with something that lacks "color" (literally in the case of the original "BH") when you now have a more fully fleshed-out remake of the original?

Elijah · 08-24-2008, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Mark was, I think, addressing either the Messiah idea held among the gentile Christians, and/or was addressing the Messiah idea of the Jewish Christians. The latter was much more dangerous, as it could lead to (another) revolt against the Romans, with foreseeable disastrous results. The former version was mostly silly, and perhaps to some extent dangerous as it might be at odds with Roman civic religion. Hence his story revolves around showing how such a Messiah simply doesn't work, an extended version of the prophet-in-his-own-country idea.

Gerard Stafleu

That looks pretty close to me. Get the people to stop waiting for a savior.

Now go make this idea popular please.

gstafleu · 08-24-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckE99

I like this as an idea (though I'm not sure it's much more than another way of looking at the story). But that suggests that GMark is a very sophisticated story written in ancient times, since clearly the text never comes out and says, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!" That's a pretty big nuance to gleen from the story. (And, it hasn't been gleened for 2,000 years, so it is a very subtle nuance.)

I'm not sure if it really is all that subtle. It is, I think, more a case where the not-all-that-subtle message got buried by interpretations of true believers. Consider the environment of that time.

There was a body of believers in the Jesus Messiah, in one form or another. At the time of Mark, this belief was becoming historiced. IOW, even if it originally started with a Jesus as some sort of heavenly figure, by the time Mark wrote this figure had definitely (in a significant way started to) come to earth. As a result when Matthew, and/or his community, got their hands on Mark's story, it didn't even occur to them that this was anything else than a historical account. Same for Luke. These two basically miss Mark's whole point, and treat the whole thing as a documentary. They then of course have to flesh out the whole thing, e.g. with a nativity: a real human being gets born, instead of just sort of appearing, and that is good to have in his bio--Mark, OTOH, didn't need this so he didn't bother including it.

As a result, the message Mark intended to convey never really had a chance against the automatic interpretations of the believers. Ironically, this meant that what we now know as a "gospel" really started its life as an anti-gospel. An interesting case of sick transit.

Gerard Stafleu

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-22-2008, 12:17 PM	#13
ChuckE99 Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Seattle Area Posts: 116	I like this as an idea (though I'm not sure it's much more than another way of looking at the story). But that suggests that GMark is a very sophisticated story written in ancient times, since clearly the text never comes out and says, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, KIDS!" That's a pretty big nuance to gleen from the story. (And, it hasn't been gleened for 2,000 years, so it is a very subtle nuance.) Still, it's an idea that gives structure to what I see as the underlying Miracle Worker/Messiah story of GMark and points to what may have been a form of proto-Mark before the addition of some select sayings. For example, 4:1 through 4:32, which are some of the only sayings in GMark rated as probably authentic by the Jesus Seminar. I would suggest that they are authentic to some first-century prophet, but that they were dropped into the story of the Messiah to give it more heft. You can then see how the authors of Matthew and Luke, who each had a copy of "Q", picked up on the similarities of the sayings and decided to put even more of them into the story, along with birth narratives and extended passion details. So, the evolution of the Jesus Christ myth goes: 1. Cautionary Tale + Proto-sayings (what Crossan labels the "triple tradition" of sayings) = GMark 2. GMark + more sayings + birth legends + resurrection legends = GMatthew and GLuke

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.